If I might butt in for a sec. — praxis

If you're going to butt-in, at least become familiar with the discussion.

It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse — praxis

I have repeatedly contrasted Spiritualism with Materialism as antagonistic worldviews. FYI, I'm using "Spiritualism" in a broad sense, not limited to the 19th century table-tipping fad by that name. For those who have been living under a rock for the last century, I'll note that the "rift" between Science (physics) and Religion (metaphysics) has been a hot topic in philosophy since the Enlightenment. And the clear trend among philosophers has been to side with Physics. Or is that also Fake News? Are you just being contrary, or do you have something to add to the thread?

Spiritualism : the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

The Uneasy Revival of Metaphysics : https://philpapers.org/rec/DEGTUR

Healing the Rift : Bridging the Gap Between Science and Spirituality
https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Rift-Bridging-Spirituality-Hardcover/dp/B002VH4QW8

Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error? — praxis

No. It was just a personal opinion. Do you know what "IMHO" means? If you disagree with that opinion, start another thread. :razz:

You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying. — praxis

Are you also a Global Warming denier? :joke:

I suspect that Possibility is aware and concerned about this philosophical dilemma, for which the Fifth Dimension theory is a proposed partial solution. If the "Rift" is no concern of yours, please butt out. :cool:

PS___To turn your attention away from this thread, I could reference hundreds of book on the topic of "The Rift". Here's a short list : https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/science-vs-religion

Yes. Time is not a physical thing that can be measured with a yard/meter stick. But it is a dimension only by analogy to spatial dimensions. Time measures Change. What does your Fifth Dimension measure : Meaning, Values, Significance . . . ? Like the passage of Time, such qualities are completely Subjective and Relative, until we agree on conventional units of measurement, such as objective physical Moon revolutions. What kind of units do you use to measure the structure of the Fifth Dimension? How do you "observe" that structure? — Gnomon

A measurement of time is the relation of a perception of change to an observer, but there is no universal measure of time.

“This is time for us: a multi-layered, complex concept with multiple, distinct properties deriving from various different approximations.
Many discussions of the concept of time are confused because they simply do not recognise its complex and multi-layered aspect. They make the mistake of not seeing that the different layers are independent.” - Carlo Rovelli

The analogy to spatial dimensions often leads to an oversimplification of what ‘time’ is, based on the misunderstanding that ‘space’ as a dimensional existence refers to a container instead of a multi-layered, complex conceptual structure of three, two and one-dimensional relations.

We ‘observe’ value, potential and significance whenever we think, speak and act. In particular when we act, we ‘collapse the wavefunction’, so to speak, and manifest an event.

Many world religions claim to have "worked out" how to "observe" those metaphysical properties : divine revelation, visions, mystical experiences, faith, Intuition, meditation, drug trips, etc. Are you looking for a new more certain method to measure the incommensurable? If these properties are "not imaginary" (mind pictures), does that mean they exist outside the mind, in the objective real world? If so, can we use pragmatic methods to observe them? — Gnomon

But what they often fail to acknowledge is that the methods by which they ‘observe’ those metaphysical relations (which we refer to as ‘properties’) necessarily affect the structure, objectivity and certainty of their observation. What I’m looking for is a clearer understanding of how different methods and their limitations affect any observation, and then what we can do to improve the accuracy of these methods, and ultimately the accuracy of any interaction with reality.

Objectively speaking, what we call ‘properties’ are more accurately ‘relations’ - they don’t really belong to any particular object, event or experience, but more accurately refer to relations between their components. Knowledge is not a property I possess, but refers to complex relations between me and the events with which I interact. Even spatial ‘properties’ such as volume refer more accurately to relations between molecules (which are themselves relational structures between atoms, which are relations between particles) rather than what ‘belongs’ to the water, for instance. I just wanted to try and clear this up before we go any further.

So, these metaphysical ‘properties’ can be understood as complex relations between lower dimension relational structures, but don’t necessarily recognise the isolated relational structure to which we subjectively attribute them as a ‘property’, but rather relate to all nested structural relations down to matter/anti-matter. So to call them ‘mind pictures’ is to oversimplify the complexity of this relational structure between internal and external reality.

Please reference some venerable or historical definitions of the Fifth Dimension. Do they match your meaning of the term? Are they different from the examples I gave above? Do you have a new way to perceive that extra-sensory dimension, besides the methods I mentioned above? — Gnomon

I understand your dissatisfaction with where I’m at in developing my theory. I have referred to this fifth dimension with a number of different terms for convenience - including potentiality, value, and more recently affect - but I’ve yet to settle on a specific term because this is still a work in progress, and I believe that a definition at this stage will limit what I’m trying to achieve. I’m not deliberately trying to be evasive - I’m trying to preserve the uncertain nature of the objective reality I’m referring to. If I define this fifth dimension, then it becomes subjective, and all the work I’m doing is lost.

As for a way to ‘perceive’ this dimension (as opposed to observing it, which is something else), I have referred a number of times to the neuroscientific theory developed by Lisa Feldman Barrett, which explains the relation between emotion, affect, brain activity and behaviour, and the way we develop, test and refine our conceptual structures. She begins by debunking the classical view of emotions as instinctive, inherent and universal, and then goes on to propose a theory of emotion, based on neuroscientific research in relation to psychology, which presents emotions as conceptual structures we develop by relating, distinguishing and recognising patterns across instances of affect. It is this affect, as a dual aspect of what she refers to as ‘valence’ (pleasant/unpleasant) and ‘arousal’ (high/low energy), that describes a mental reduction of qualitative/quantitative potentiality and value into a predictive map of attention and effort requirements for the organism. What she’s essentially describing is a neural link between mental and physical states, in a way that supports my own theory of the fifth dimension as potentiality and value, and fits in with quantum interpretations of potential reality (qualia notwithstanding). If I’m not entirely clear on how this all fits together, it’s because I’ve only recently started to piece it together.

If you can't control the meaning of your words, then they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. Why do you think philosophers throughout the years have split so much ink on defining conventional words, and so often resorted to creating new terms with no prior baggage? Was Kant haughty when he coined the term "categorical imperative" and "pure reason", by combining old words into novel concepts? Enformationism is a new paradigm, which would be incomprehensible in terms of the old paradigms of Materialism or Spiritualism. — Gnomon

I’m approaching this from a different perspective to you, so bear with me. And I will reiterate that I have no issue with neologisms as such - I just think we need to be more cautious with how we employ them at this level of discussion. Kant wrote in the context of a very different world - your reference to @3017amen about missing ‘the corrections of post-modernism’ seems relevant here (and also goes some way towards explaining your concern with the materialism/spiritualism divide). In contrast, I was at university during the 1990s (not studying philosophy, though), so you could say my view is steeped in post-modernism to some extent. ‘Haughty’ was historically par for the course among philosophers, particularly of Kant’s era. But ‘categorical imperative’ is quite a different novel concept to ‘enformation’, in my view. I don’t believe that license to ignore ‘prior baggage’ is sufficient reason to coin a new term. You’re only avoiding the necessity to eventually unpack that baggage and reconstruct a relation to the original term.

Words identify the significance of conceptual structures (patterns across instances) in relation to reality, and are taught to infants by adults.

“Infants thereby learn to categorise the world in a way that is consistent, meaningful, and predictable to us (the speakers), and eventually to themselves. Their mental model of the world becomes similar to ours, so we can communicate, share experiences, and perceive the same world.” - Feldman Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’

My aim here, however, is not to develop your mental model of the world to match mine, but rather to demonstrate the possible existence of meaning beyond the limitations of either of our existing mental models. I’m not the one assuming my definition of a word is the same as the meaning of the same word in another’s mind. Your words will mean whatever the reader wants them to mean, regardless of how you define them. Every word of your definition is open to subjective interpretation, which is what ultimately points to a perception of your meaning. So, in the end, your attempt to control meaning is futile.

How do you propose to "remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions", without proposing unconventional meanings? Do you think that consciousness raising will magically remove millennia of prejudicial interpretations of common words? Demonizing the blunt term "cripple" in favor of "handicapped" or "impaired", may have changed attitudes toward certain previously marginalized people, but if you continue to use old spiritual terminology, how can you change attitudes toward the variety of uncompromising religions with us-versus-them attitudes toward their fellow spiritualists? How can you remove the perceptual limitations of seekers like me, who were raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts? — Gnomon

Your example refers to reconceptualising reality so that an existing definition is attributed a less isolating or ignorant perspective in relation to meaning. I’m not trying to change the significance - I’m trying to broaden the definition to allow the existing identity of its conceptual structure to be less ignorant in relation to meaning. There’s a difference.

I think that increasing awareness, connection and collaboration will eventually succeed in removing the limited perspectives of conventional definitions. We can’t always enforce a paradigm shift from the top down, but eventually those who continue in their ignorance, isolation or exclusion will be in the minority, as is often the case.

Please let me know where I have been using ‘old spiritual terminology’, and I will try to clarify - I wasn’t aware of this. I, too, was raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts, so that might have something to do with it...

I am enjoying this dialog, in part, because I sense that you and I have similar aspirations. For example, I am trying, in my own idiosyncratic way, to legitimize the concepts of Metaphysics and Spiritualism, which were banished from scientific and philosophical discourse most decisively by Descartes. His Body/Soul division was later called "non-overlapping magisteria" by S.J. Gould. It gave science license to investigate all of Nature, except the aspects we are all most intimately familiar with : our own experiences & feelings & ideas. Yet those of other people remain shrouded in myths and "spiritual mysteries". — Gnomon

I agree that our aspirations have some similarities, and also enjoy discussing your theory because I see a lot of merit to it. The ideas you have brought together follow my own lines of inquiry.

I’ll be honest with you, though - my aim is not to legitimise any ‘isms’ or to go in to bat for the validity of metaphysical ‘woo’ or ‘spiritual mysteries’. I won’t dismiss them as such, but I don’t find the divisive language at all helpful. I do also agree with the ‘oddities’ raised by @praxis - I think they’re valid concerns that you may need to address at some stage. There remains an affective and sometimes even political loading to your language which implies a blanket dismissiveness on the part of science, philosophy or fundamental religion to any collaboration between physics and metaphysics, but I have found plenty of evidence to the contrary, at least in physics, neuroscience, biology and philosophy, as well as in progressive Christian circles. I’m under the impression that you have, too, to some extent - despite your apparent concern with this perpetual divide between ‘isms’.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should proceed as if there was NO ideological divide, instead of continually repeating outdated battlecries based on past ignorance. My concern is with the gaps in understanding between mental and physical states of the brain, consciousness, will and action, actuality and potentiality, quantum and observable interpretations of reality, and between life and lifeless matter. In my opinion, philosophy has made more genuine progress in bridging these gaps in understanding than anyone else, and science (yes, even physics) is taking its cues from this. While my own theory did originate from a more spiritual perspective, I find the top-down control and ambiguity of spiritualism hinders rather than helps in bridging these gaps. This probably results in a tendency on my part to reject spiritualist language. I find there is more scope to broaden scientific language to embrace metaphysical notions than to guide the diversity of spiritual language towards an accurate rendering of science.

I would like to get to Kastrup, but my time is limited and Deacon is slow-going. From what I can see, Kastrup’s reference to an alternate ‘space’ might be limiting, particularly given his focus on qualitative attention, as this may not lend itself to extending ‘attention’ all the way to the origin of existence. It remains to be seen, I suppose.

1. The argument from 'iterability of meaning' (refer to video if you like) was that which I was referring to, where there is need to reach consensus in (contextual) definitions first, before proceeding into a debate or discussion etc. about the concept. In other words, agree (or disagree) on the definitions about the subject matter beforehand. — 3017amen

Start with definitions - yes, I agree here. From there, we proceed into discussions regarding the structure of the concept, with the aim to approach a shared meaning. The trouble arises, however, when someone enters the discussion with a new definition-word-concept package as an attempt to control meaning from the start. That changes the discussion to an evaluation or critical analysis of a particular belief system in relation to its perspective of truth.

Another spirited/working example comes from the doctrine of vagueness:

"Where does the tail of a snake begin? When posed as a rhetorical question, the speaker is hinting that there is no definite answer. But the tail can be located by tracing down from the snake’s rib cage. A false attribution of indeterminacy will lead to the premature abandonment of inquiry. The risk of futile inquiry into questions that cannot be answered must be balanced against the risk of abandoning questions that are actually answerable. " — 3017amen

I’m with you here. Not sure how it applies to my comments, though.

2. IMO, your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit. Meaning, as being a sort of paradigm-buster myself (in his case him being a recovering Fundy), I have argued or suggested in the past that in the 21st century we needed to re-define many old-school belief systems that are either unsophisticated, oppressive, or otherwise deleterious to our way of Being (part of the problem and not the solution). Similarly, Derrida's work in part, was an effort in the 60's socio-political movement where change was much needed at the forefront of Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, etc.. — 3017amen

I recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms.

The analogy to spatial dimensions often leads to an oversimplification of what ‘time’ is, based on the misunderstanding that ‘space’ as a dimensional existence refers to a container instead of a multi-layered, complex conceptual structure of three, two and one-dimensional relations. — Possibility

Do you have some kind of image or diagram to illustrate the multilayered structure of space? The diagram below is a simplified interpretation of 3 dimensions, and could also illustrate the fourth dimension by moving the diagram from one point in time to another. String theorists have developed some computer renderings to represent their extra mathematically defined dimensions. Can your Fifth Dimension be represented in a similar manner? Or is it something else altogether?



Shape of String Space : https://news.wisc.edu/physicists-find-way-to-see-extra-dimensions/

Objectively speaking, what we call ‘properties’ are more accurately ‘relations’ — Possibility

This sounds similar to my own notion that, fundamentally, Information consists of inter-relations --- not between Things but Possibilities --- that can be represented as geometric ratios. One of the "properties" of complex & integrated relationships is what we interpret as Meaning. Simpler patterns are merely mathematical, but can be used as syntactical Shannon Information to compute higher order patterns, that we can translate back into semantic meanings. This is just the beginning of new way to think about Information. But I'm afraid it will take someone much smarter than me to develop it into a structured concept that can be understood by the average person.

So to call them ‘mind pictures’ is to oversimplify the complexity of this relational structure between internal and external reality. — Possibility

Unfortunately, human understanding mostly takes the form of "mind pictures" : simplified icons analogous to "real" things out there in the world. If you want to communicate your own abstract concepts to others, you'll have to dumb them down into simplistic pictures of more familiar things. :nerd:

I’ll be honest with you, though - my aim is not to legitimise any ‘isms’ or to go in to bat for the validity of metaphysical ‘woo’ or ‘spiritual mysteries’. — Possibility

My intent is not to "legitimize" those -isms as isolated traditions, but to integrate "woo" & "mysteries" into a whole system with empirical Science. Most scientists and atheists "dismiss" ancient metaphysical notions as non-sense. Yet I think the pre-scientific religious founders and philosophers were just as smart as modern materialists. They were simply using metaphorical language to describe transcendent concepts. Unfortunately, some of their followers took their metaphors too literally and dogmatically.

This is the point that Bernardo Kastrup is trying to make in his book, More Than Allegory. His previous "book is The Idea of the World: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality." In other words, Idealism. Which is also the point of Enformationism. Neither of these is a rejection of Realism, but a reinterpretation of reality in terms of Quantum and Information theories. By combining the science of the mundane physical world with the myths of the sublime mental world, we may learn to dispel ancient mysteries without divine revelations.

Ironically, my first impression of your transcendent Fifth Dimension theory was that it attempts to validate "metaphysical woo", such as New Age notions of higher dimensions :joke:

There remains an affective and sometimes even political loading to your language which implies a blanket dismissiveness on the part of science, philosophy or fundamental religion to any collaboration between physics and metaphysics, — Possibility

That is the complete opposite to my intent. On this forum I am often critical of Scientism, but that's only in response to posters who are hard atheists, and dismissive of anything that smacks of religion. I, personally, am not religious at all. And I could be labeled "spiritual" only because I seriously entertain metaphysical notions that are anathema to physicists. BTW, FWIW, I am also completely a-political --- a militant moderate. My personal worldview is built upon cutting-edge science, not ancient religion.

The BothAnd Philosophy : From a philosophical point-of-view, I think the current “Mexican stand-off” in politics & religion results from a few extremists on left & right imposing their adamant Either/Or worldviews upon the more moderate masses, with the effect of almost eliminating the middle ground of peace & harmony. So, my proposed solution to the polarization problem is to adopt a moderate & inclusive Both/And attitude toward the world and its vicissitudes.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page2.html

So, in the end, your attempt to control meaning is futile. — Possibility

That sounds like a fatalistic Postmodern attitude toward communication of ideas. Like Marxism, it assumes that all human behavior boils down to brutal us-versus-them politics. I am optimistically searching for some common ground in the "Better Angels of Our Nature". :cool:


Transcendent : beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience. [ i.e. meta-physical or mental ]

Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should proceed as if there was NO ideological divide, — Possibility

That is the point of the BothAnd philosophy.

The BothAnd Philosophy :
Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.   

The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.  

The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.   

The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as  to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

* ref : Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb;  researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability.

This probably results in a tendency on my part to reject spiritualist language. — Possibility

I too, avoid the use of spiritual language (mostly metaphors for transcendence), except as necessary to re-define them into 21st century concepts, compatible with the best of modern science.

I recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms. — Possibility

You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. Critiquing and de-constructing out-of-date terminology is my way of "broadening awareness" and eliminating "ideological biases". :cool:

Note : I don't often use Postmodern terminology, but in this case it seems appropriate.

Please let me know where I have been using ‘old spiritual terminology’, and I will try to clarify — Possibility

Sorry, that was a generic "you" in the quote. I wasn't saying that Possibility was using spiritual terminology.

Actually, my problem here is that you (Possibility) are using mundane terminology in an unconventional sense. I have repeatedly asked for your own personal definition of what the "Fifth Dimension" is, and how it relates to me. I even quoted several scientific definitions, that don't seem to apply to your theory. So, it seems that you are expecting me to grasp your totally abstract meaning intuitively. But my meager talent for intuition needs some grounding in reality. And that's the role of metaphors. Not to be taken literally, but to be intuited figuratively. Now, after all these wordy posts, I still don't know what the Fifth Dimension is, or does --- just that it's out there somewhere, measuring something.

I don't understand your visceral distrust of definitions, but I'm guessing that it may come from the Postmodern philosophy taught in colleges since I graduated back in the fading Modern era. Concepts that are left undefined are ambiguous, and can be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily how the author intended. To me, that's like a farmer scattering a bunch of uncategorized seeds, with no concern whether they will grow into corn or weeds. Unfortunately, the freedom for each reader to "construct" his own meaning results in a Tower of Babble.

So, I remain, yours truly, Confused. :brow: :confused:


To Define : 1. state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
2. mark out the boundary or limits of.

Postmodernism themes :
1. The rejection of ultimate sources of meaning and truth.
3. Language is not something that reveals, but constructs.
5. The inherent instability of meaning.
6. The Death of the Author/Artist.
12. The inevitability and productivity of tension, confusion,contradiction, and ambiguity.
https://webs.wofford.edu/whisnantcj/his389/Postmodernism.pdf

PS___Number 6 above helps me to understand why you accuse me of being a haughty strutting Auteur.

It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse
— praxis
I have repeatedly contrasted Spiritualism with Materialism as antagonistic worldviews. FYI, I'm using "Spiritualism" in a broad sense, not limited to the 19th century table-tipping fad by that name. For those who have been living under a rock for the last century, I'll note that the "rift" between Science (physics) and Religion (metaphysics) has been a hot topic in philosophy since the Enlightenment. And the clear trend among philosophers has been to side with Physics. Or is that also Fake News? Are you just being contrary, or do you have something to add to the thread? — Gnomon

To help avoid potential confusion in the future, I suggest that you consider contrasting materialism with idealism and try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism but rather something more like theorizing about the nature of reality.

I understand this oddity now, for what that's worth.

Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error?
— praxis
No. It was just a personal opinion. Do you know what "IMHO" means? If you disagree with that opinion, start another thread. — Gnomon

It's not that I disagree with your opinion, rather I'm curious about how you arrived at it, given the curious way you present the opinion as a 'correction'. If you say there's a correction it implies that there's a plan or grand design that the correction helps to fulfill. I'm not aware of any teleological destination that the enlightenment helps to achieve. In any case, you seem to believe that the enlightenment is inadequate in itself for this grand end and may even hinder its fruition.

You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying.
— praxis
Are you also a Global Warming denier?

I suspect that Possibility is aware and concerned about this philosophical dilemma, for which the Fifth Dimension theory is a proposed partial solution. If the "Rift" is no concern of yours, please butt out. — Gnomon

No, I'm not a global warming denier, nor do I deny that modernity has serious issues. The problem is that your focus on this rift doesn't address these issues. It's like you're mistaking mild symptoms for the disease.

I haven't been following your discussion with Possibility. However, having read several posts from both of you my impression is that Possibility is doing philosophy and you're doing something else. I think that you could do what you're doing much better if you realized and fully embraced what it is that you're doing, rather than pretending to be doing something that you're not doing. I acknowledge that you may know perfectly well what you're trying to do but are simply not good at it.

Thanks! The whole point of Enformationism is "paradigm busting", not merely saying the same old thing in strange words. — Gnomon

You're welcome!

It's been a very intriguing thread. I'm a John Wheeler/Physicist fan, and enjoy reading his theories about Information, thus (excerpt from a paper on conscious thoughts occurring 'outside' the brain/ Dirk K.F. Meijer, University of Groningen, The Netherlands) :


"Can our personal information survive?

This is where the "information theory", mentioned above, comes into play. Assuming with Wheeler that everything in the universe is composed of matter, energy, and information, according to the “Energy Conservation Law”, energy cannot be destroyed. It follows that also the information that constitutes us, may not disappear altogether. In this context, Prof. Meijer brings me back to the supposed consciousness workspace, that preserves an up-to-date picture of our total personal state of art. "If quantum information, like energy, cannot be destroyed, it is theoretical possible that when our brain dies, when we pass away, the information stored around our brain survives in some other dimension, an aspect that may be revealed in NDE conditions. "

I’m with you here. Not sure how it applies to my comments, though. — Possibility

I was simply making an analogous assertion that defining the terms, is paramount to any spirited discussion.

recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms. — Possibility

Indeed, well, how would you suggest we reconcile novel approaches to new/old concepts? No pun intended however, living in the 'information age', is it appropriate that we frame our new paradigms with similarly new words/concepts (I'm not a Lexicographer, but don't dictionaries evolve)?

Do you have some kind of image or diagram to illustrate the multilayered structure of space? The diagram below is a simplified interpretation of 3 dimensions, and could also illustrate the fourth dimension by moving the diagram from one point in time to another. String theorists have developed some computer renderings to represent their extra mathematically defined dimensions. Can your Fifth Dimension be represented in a similar manner? Or is it something else altogether? — Gnomon

If you think that you can ‘see’ six dimensions in the image that the string theory article shows, then you’re kidding yourself. What they’re expecting from you is the same thing you’re accusing me of expecting: faith. Your faith is in their calculations. If you ignore the four familiar dimensions entirely, then it’s mathematically possible to formulate a six-dimensional existence - that’s essentially what my theory is based on, and what this computer rendering demonstrates for those who can do the maths. To the rest of us, the computer rendering at best illustrates four dimensions IF you watch it in action instead of trusting that the 2D image you’re presented with in the article really does represent six dimensions. What it doesn’t answer is how they propose that this exists ‘hidden’ at every point in the universe. The maths is not in question - it’s the interpretation of how it all relates to our four dimensional observable reality that varies and, in the case of String Theory, fails to convince. It’s basically a form of calculation that gives scientists the potential location of an unknown planet from what information they have about known planets nearby: a cosmos-level mathematical function similar to quantum theory. Its inclusion of GR is important to keep in mind as a counterbalance to QT, but its application and interpretation at the human level of experience is even less convincing than quantum theory.

This sounds similar to my own notion that, fundamentally, Information consists of inter-relations --- not between Things but Possibilities --- that can be represented as geometric ratios. One of the "properties" of complex & integrated relationships is what we interpret as Meaning. Simpler patterns are merely mathematical, but can be used as syntactical Shannon Information to compute higher order patterns, that we can translate back into semantic meanings. This is just the beginning of new way to think about Information. But I'm afraid it will take someone much smarter than me to develop it into a structured concept that can be understood by the average person. — Gnomon

It is very similar, yes. Geometric ratios is basically what I mean by dimensional structures of relation. Meaning as a six-dimensional relational structure allows for a broader or ‘objective’ sense of this concept of ‘information’. Meaning is not only a feature of complex and integrated relations, but of

EVERY relation, from an holistic concept of the Absolute down to the simplest relation of matter/anti-matter - two extremes that approach the same idea. At the highest level of existence and at the lowest level of reduction, we find the same binary relation - regardless of what word or value or significance we attribute - that fundamentally means I/0, or existence and its negation. To exist or not to exist: that is the question.

Meaning or what matters regardless of value is six-dimensional information. It is a concept that is both infinitely meaningful and meaningless in itself. Value/potential, what matters regardless of time or whether anything changes, is five-dimensional information. Time/duration/change, what matters regardless of where and what a relation is or how it got there, is four-dimensional information. The space/sensibility/measurability of something, what matters regardless of how the relation takes place, is three-dimensional information. The shape of the relation, what matters regardless of the energy/distance involved, is two-dimensional information. And the effort/attention itself, what matters regardless whether or not any relation is even possible, is one-dimensional information. Which brings us back to the possibility/impossibility of anything existing at all: this binary relation fundamental to existence. That’s my current attempt to explain it, anyway.

Ironically, my first impression of your transcendent Fifth Dimension theory was that it attempts to validate "metaphysical woo", such as New Age notions of higher dimensions — Gnomon

Yeah I got that loud and clear. Still not entirely sure why, though.

That is the complete opposite to my intent. On this forum I am often critical of Scientism, but that's only in response to posters who are hard atheists, and dismissive of anything that smacks of religion. I, personally, am not religious at all. And I could be labeled "spiritual" only because I seriously entertain metaphysical notions that are anathema to physicists. BTW, FWIW, I am also completely a-political --- a militant moderate. My personal worldview is built upon cutting-edge science, not ancient religion. — Gnomon

My reference to ‘political’ was in relation to power relations, not politics as such. You portray spiritualism as hard done by or oppressed by science in general, when what you intend to do is call individuals on their dismissive attitude towards the language that you use. I understand your defensiveness, but as I’ve explained I also understand their attitude. The language of spiritualism is often aimed at trying to control meaning rather than discuss the accuracy of concepts or definitions. It’s very easy to come across as apologetic, even if that’s not your intention. I’ve learned to use spiritualist language sparingly - not because I don’t believe, but because I’m not going to argue in defence of personal beliefs using the language of a belief system.

That sounds like a fatalistic Postmodern attitude toward communication of ideas. Like Marxism, it assumes that all human behavior boils down to brutal us-versus-them politics. I am optimistically searching for some common ground in the "Better Angels of Our Nature". — Gnomon

If you’re NOT trying to control meaning, then I think your approach might be misguided. But you did say that was your aim with neologisms. I understand that this search for common ground is your overall intention. I’m suggesting that your execution needs work - at least here on this forum.

try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism — praxis

That correlation wasn't my idea. Aristotle's Metaphysics has been associated with Religion and Spiritualism for thousands of years. For the purposes of my thesis, I have a completely different interpretation of what Aristotle was talking about.

Spiritualism is a metaphysical belief that the world is made up of at least two fundamental substances, matter and spirit. ... It is also a term commonly used for various psychic or paranormal practices and beliefs recorded throughout humanity's history and in a variety of cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism_(beliefs)

Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

It's not that I disagree with your opinion, rather I'm curious about how you arrived at it, given the curious way you present the opinion as a 'correction'. If you say there's a correction it implies that there's a plan or grand design that the correction helps to fulfill. I'm not aware of any teleological destination that the enlightenment helps to achieve. — praxis

My comment was a general impression, not an assertion based on historical research. But, FWIW, I do believe that there is something like Teleology at work in the world. This is not a Christian teleology as proposed by Hegel, but a scientific teleology based on the upward curve of Evolution. The key difference from Christian teleology, is the inference from evolutionary history that the world was not designed fait accompli in the let-there-be Genesis manner, but it was Programmed as an ongoing self-developing system. The mechanism of the program is basically Darwinian, but updated to include Quantum and Information processing.

Enformation :Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

Cosmic Progression : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

The problem is that your focus on this rift doesn't address these issues. — praxis

I doubt that you have any idea what my focus is on this topic. You'd have to read the thesis and subsequent blog posts to get a good idea of how I address the Rift. My posts in this thread have been mostly responses to criticism of specific details, not the whole concept of Enformationism.

my impression is that Possibility is doing philosophy and you're doing something else. — praxis

What I'm doing is not academic philosophy focused on a narrow topic. Instead it's a general universal Theory of Everything, and is based primarily on post-classical 21st century scientific discoveries, such as Quantum Theory and Information Theory. More to the point, it's my personal worldview, and philosophical principle. It's not a religious narrative for the masses, or a scientific paper for specialists. It's my layman's understanding of how the world works, and my role in it. Is that philosophy? :cool:

try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism
— praxis
That correlation wasn't my idea. — Gnomon

Whatever, it was just a suggestion that would help to avoid misunderstandings when you say things like 'metaphysics was banished from philosophical discourse'.

Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction. — Gnomon

Assuming that what's positive for human beings is positive for everything, how can we be sure that evolution is going well for us? Perhaps evolution took a very bad turn at some point and the earth will shortly end up a radioactive wasteland, or die a much slower death because of us. You're not a climate change denier, I trust.

to avoid misunderstandings — praxis

A philosophical forum is full of "misunderstandings". That's the point of ongoing dialog : to learn how other people interpret our words, and to either change our words, or to change their minds. But both words (concepts) and minds (belief systems) are hard to change. Yet, as philosophers, we keep stubbornly trying to change the world with words instead of with swords. :worry:

Assuming that what's positive for human beings is positive for everything, how can we be sure that evolution is going well for us? — praxis

I don't assume that the point of Evolution (the Program) is to make things better for us homo sapiens. In the overall scheme of things, we may be merely one brief experiment among millions of trials & errors. But, at this point in time, we seem to be the only species with knowledge of Good & Evil, and awareness of Past & Future. That's why human Culture has assumed that Nature is not looking-out for us, and the gods are unreliable, so we have to look-out for ourselves. Modern science has taken over the role of ancient deities, by working miracles (e.g. vaccines) specifically to make evolution go better for our kind. We are our own Chosen People. :smile:

Moral Progress :   Cultural evolution seems to work with the same trial & error principles as the natural kind, except that human Will (and reasoning) is the primary cause of Cultural Selection. And Steven Pinker has found that human cultures are actually progressing morally and technologically. Moral progress was the topic of his previous book : The Better Angels of Our Nature.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page73.html [note 4 popup]

Yeah I got that loud and clear. Still not entirely sure why, though. — Possibility

Because the term "Fifth Dimension", is associated in my mind primarily with the New Age of Aquarius notion of a transcendent level of consciousness. Since you evaded my requests for your own personal definition, that's all I had to go on. Except for the various other scientific or pseudo-scientific applications of that terminology, that I linked to, and you shrugged off. So, what is it : Woo or Science? Or both??? :wink:

What is the Fifth Dimension? : https://andreaoneness.com/fifth-dimension/

You portray spiritualism as hard done by or oppressed by science in general, — Possibility

That is how Spiritualists view themselves : as punching bags for science. (I am not a Spiritualist). So, I can also sympathize with materialist scientists, who feel besieged by god-fearing Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. (I am not a materialist) I can argue for or against both sides, because my personal philosophy is BothAnd. :yum:

Science vs Spirituality : Fritjof Capra explores how Science and Spirituality can be fused in an integrated system that returns us to a sense of oneness with the natural world.
https://upliftconnect.com/science-and-spirituality/

If you’re NOT trying to control meaning, then I think your approach might be misguided. But you did say that was your aim with neologisms. — Possibility

But, I AM trying to control the meaning of words that I use to express my personal worldview. Is that approach misguided? If I fail to convey my meaning, what's the point of the message? Did you think I was trying to define Ultimate Truth? :nerd:

New meanings require new words : Neologisms are often driven by changes in culture and technology,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".

That's the point of ongoing dialog : to learn how other people interpret our words, and to either change our words, or to change their minds. — Gnomon

I think it would be sufficient if you simply learned what most understand metaphysics to be and consequently used the word appropriately so as not to cause needless miscommunication.

Moral Progress — Gnomon

Pinker is definitely an optimist. Still, the claim that evolution is moving in a positive direction remains unjustified.

"Can our personal information survive? — 3017amen

I have given some thought to that question. And my answer is "maybe". When your body turns to dust, the information associated with that matter is dissipated, like Entropy. But, if G*D, the Programmer, has some good reason to recompile your personal information pattern, you wouldn't "survive", but you could be re-incarnated. But, since I don't have a plausible revelation of G*D's will, I'm not banking on having a second chance to get my life right. For me, it's now or never. :cool:

When Descartes, in a thought experiment, arbitrarily divided metaphysical Soul from physical Body, it was based on the observation that they are of different "natures" (properties). But, in the real world, Mind/Body is a unit. Physical properties and Metaphysical qualities combine to form a dynamic whole system : the person. A similar science-fiction thought experiment was the Transporter of Star Trek. In theory, it scanned your personal definitive information, and converted it into computer code, which was then beamed across space in the form of energy. Then the impersonal energy was translated back into personal information, and thence back into a physical form. NIce! However, in more than one episode, the writers explored the mind-bending question : is the reconstituted body really my Self/
Soul, or a new person altogether? :chin:

I think it would be sufficient if you simply learned what most understand metaphysics to be and consequently used the word appropriately so as not to cause needless miscommunication. — praxis

Again you missed the point of my unconventional worldview. I think "what most understand metaphysics to be" is either Super-Natural, or an impractical abstraction from natural real-world Physics. The medieval definition of "Metaphysics", emphasized the essential distinction between Body and Soul. Later, the modern interpretation of the same word, has placed Mind/Soul under the general category of matter-based Physics. But, my definition of "what lies Beyond Physics" is, I think, actually closer to what Aristotle had in mind when he divided his encyclopedia into materialistic Physics (science) and mentalistic Metaphysics (philosophy). The ideas discussed in volume II were focused on our human concepts & attitudes about Nature and Culture. Hence, what I mean by "Metaphysics" is the mental aspects of the world, including Cultural Evolution as contrasted with Natural Evolution. To use old words for new concepts would lead to complete "miscommunication" my intent and meaning.

Since you seem to prefer conservative traditional philosophical terms, your definition of "Metaphysics" can be found in conventional dictionaries, as Ontology, etc. But, since my radical worldview is proposing a new paradigm of reconciled Science, Philosophy, & Religion, I've had to translate those broad abstractions into specific modern metaphors. For example, what the priests called "Spirit", and scientists call "Energy", I call "EnFormAction". :cool:
[ Note : the smilie icon above could mean "I'm cool", or "blind", or "arrogant" depending on context and preconceptions. I use it to mean that "I mean no offense" ]


Metaphysical vs Supernatural : the metaphysical derives from laws of nature, the supernatural derives from outside laws of nature. Thus, for example, one cannot use gravity or electromagnetic fields or strong force to study the attributes of the supernatural. The metaphysical examines "what exists", the physical "how it exists", the supernatural "what exists outside existence". I do not see this as a dualism between philosophy vs religion but between existence vs nonexistence.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/metaphysical-vs-supernatural.129313/

Meta-Physics : Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Since you seem to prefer conservative traditional philosophical terms, your definition of "Metaphysics" can be found in conventional dictionaries, as Ontology, etc. But, since my radical worldview is proposing a new paradigm of reconciled Science, Philosophy, & Religion... — Gnomon

Sure, do whatever you have to in order to understand science, philosophy, and religion better, but again, if you want to be understood, learn the meaning of words and use them appropriately. Clearly, it is not your aim to be understood, however, and that is in part why I say that you're doing something other than philosophy here.

Actually, my problem here is that you (Possibility) are using mundane terminology in an unconventional sense. I have repeatedly asked for your own personal definition of what the "Fifth Dimension" is, and how it relates to me. I even quoted several scientific definitions, that don't seem to apply to your theory. So, it seems that you are expecting me to grasp your totally abstract meaning intuitively. But my meager talent for intuition needs some grounding in reality. And that's the role of metaphors. Not to be taken literally, but to be intuited figuratively. Now, after all these wordy posts, I still don't know what the Fifth Dimension is, or does --- just that it's out there somewhere, measuring something.

I don't understand your visceral distrust of definitions, but I'm guessing that it may come from the Postmodern philosophy taught in colleges since I graduated back in the fading Modern era. Concepts that are left undefined are ambiguous, and can be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily how the author intended. To me, that's like a farmer scattering a bunch of uncategorized seeds, with no concern whether they will grow into corn or weeds. Unfortunately, the freedom for each reader to "construct" his own meaning results in a Tower of Babble. — Gnomon

A ‘definition’ of a concept is a practical reduction of meaningful information, an attempt to represent a particular pattern of experience in such a way as to minimise any uncertainty (noise or entropy) in sending or receiving this meaningful information between systems at a practical level. This works in theory, so long as the transmission of information occurs between systems that are otherwise identical, or at least between systems where the differences are known and adjusted for. But humans are not identical, and our potential differences are many and largely unknown.

We commonly define an abstract concept by using words that represent other abstract concepts. For instance, a definition of ‘anger’ is stated as “a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure or hostility”. How does this define anger? It provides examples of similarly patterned concepts so that something about your experience in relation to these words resonates in your existing conceptual structure with more certainty than the word ‘anger’, and enables you to use this information to predict the variable pattern of value represented by the word ‘anger’ (in much the same way as string theorists use known values regarding surrounding planets to predict the variable pattern of value in relation to an unknown planet, as described earlier). This is described as ‘intuitive’ only because we’re not often conscious of the process, or we have an inaccurate understanding of it. The classical misunderstanding of emotion as an ‘instinctual’ bodily system fighting against the suppression of a ‘rational’ mental system is a perfect example of this inaccurate understanding, and Feldman Barrett’s concept theory of emotions opens the door to apply quantum information theories in resolving the mind-body problem.

It’s not that I’m distrusting definitions - it’s that concepts, being patterns of experience, are inherently uncertain and variable, and so any stated definition is not a true instance of that concept, only a representation of the pattern of experience. So I’m pointing out the limited perspectives in which these concepts are defined, because I think it’s possible to work charitably (if uncertainly) towards a shared meaning about particular concepts that would encompass both materialist and idealist perspectives and enable us to more accurately define (ie. reduce) these concepts for practical purposes.

You’re assuming that you can determine my exact meaning from a definition: a stated description of a particular pattern of my experience - but it would only be a representative instance of that pattern, a reduction of the conceptual structure, all the five-dimensional information I have in relation to the term. Instead, I’m trying to relate diverse conceptual structures of the same term in a more inclusive approach to meaning that can ultimately maximise accuracy of any subsequent definition.

There’s a reason why concepts such as ‘fifth dimension’ have several scientific definitions. If you start with a precise definition that relates to empirical evidence, it maximises the apparent certainty of the concept for practical purposes. But you’re beginning with a narrow perspective of the concept. If your aim is simply to exist - to live, survive - then this seems sufficient. The way I see it, though, each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ that you’ve presented relate in their own way to what this concept means. And each of them is also necessarily limited in their perspective: ignorant, isolated, exclusive. The idea is to explore how they relate to each other, to increase awareness, connection and collaboration.

However, in more than one episode, the writers explored the mind-bending question : is the reconstituted body really my Self/
Soul, or a new person altogether? :chin:


Gnomon

17 hours ago — Gnomon

Gnomon!

Interesting. Sort of goes along with the notion that energy is never lost or destroyed. On a slightly similar note, for whatever reason, my Kantian intuition (and for the longest time) made/makes me think of 'Black Holes' as a beam-me-up-Scotty moment as it were. Meaning, perhaps storage of other EM field's of consciousness exist in yet another Dimension. That intuition is not completely absurd (or maybe it is) when considering physicist Wheeler's anthropic views (PAP) about his observations of wave pulses coming from Black Holes:




Of course, lots of big name dropping here (Davies, Wheeler, Tipler, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Variants

Clearly, it is not your aim to be understood, however, and that is in part why I say that you're doing something other than philosophy here. — praxis

I don't know what philosophers you've been reading, but the most famous thinkers also seem to be the hardest to understand. That's because they are breaking new ground, instead of recycling old ideas.

Why do you think I'm posting on a philosophy forum? I assumed that most posters would be familiar with digesting difficult concepts, and open to novel ideas. Unfortunately, old philosophical paradigms die hard. So, I don't expect the concept that "Information is the new Atom" will become common knowledge until long after I've gone to the big forum in the sky. :smile:

Philosophy is supposed to be difficult :
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/feb/25/philosophy-technical-everyday-english

Max Planck : “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I don't know what philosophers you've been reading, but the most famous thinkers also seem to be the hardest to understand. — Gnomon

Someone who remains willfully ignorant about a concept like metaphysics is called a troglodyte. And are you suggesting that you deliberately obfuscate to appear smart? I have gotten that impression, actually.

I don't expect the concept that "Information is the new Atom" will become common knowledge until long after I've gone to the big forum in the sky. — Gnomon

What's the difference between a bit of information and a bit of an atom again?

But humans are not identical, and our potential differences are many and largely unknown. — Possibility

You seem to be focusing on our differences, but communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities. However, communication of novel concepts in Science and Philosophy is seldom presented in the vocabulary of the masses. Instead, it is first directed at those who are already well-versed in the technical language of a particular field.

It’s not that I’m distrusting definitions - it’s that concepts, being patterns of experience, are inherently uncertain and variable, — Possibility

So you just give-up on putting your ideas into specific words, and rely on ESP? When you present specific ideas in vague general ("uncertain & variable") terms, a few people may grasp your meaning intuitively, but you'll never know for sure if they grokked your meaning or made-up their own meaning. In Shannon's Information Theory, successful communication can be verified to make sure what was received is what was sent.

You’re assuming that you can determine my exact meaning from a definition: — Possibility

Of course not. All I can hope to do, is throw a lot of mud on the wall, and hope some of it sticks. :wink:

But you’re beginning with a narrow perspective of the concept. — Possibility

It's called analysis of complexity into simple components. Are you opposed to analytical thinking? I understand that your notion of a Fifth Dimension is a broad concept. But couldn't you break it down into smaller chunks, that babies like me can digest? I still think your Multidimensional worldview may be compatible with my Information-based worldview. But your presentation has been so deliberately vague and non-committal that I can't be sure what you're talking about. Is it a spiritual plane, or a physical dimension? Please give me some "narrow" bites that I can masticate with sore gums. :yum:

For example : What do "each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ " have in common? How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions? Who are some published authors, Scientists or New Agers, that have presented ideas similar to yours?

called a troglodyte. — praxis

So, you're stooping to calling me names again? Are you saying I'm Stoopid? :sad:

What's the difference between a bit of information and a bit of an atom again? — praxis

I could try to answer your question, but I'm a Neanderthal, and I don't speak Postmodern Babble. :cool:

PS___Since you're so smart, can you explain to me what Possibility's Fifth Dimension is? What's the difference between the Fifth Dimension and the Sixth Dimension?

PS___Since you're so smart, can you explain to me what Possibility's Fifth Dimension is? — Gnomon

You’ve repeatedly shown that I can’t explain anything to you. I’ll read about it though.